Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

Inaccurate. I spent a little time doing that and for the third time- I have explained WHY I did so.
This demonstrates your propensity to ignore other posters if it undermines what you wish to claim about them.
Three times is more than enough Bells. Once should be sufficient.

Of course I am not fooling anyone as I am playing no one for a fool. The other readers can see clearly what I actually said- not what you claim that I said.
It really amazes me that you will make these claims, considering all anyone needs to do is scroll up.

See below.

You admit you have not read all my posts on this, not recent ones even- yet you say you know what I said?
See below... sigh...

See below...

See below although this one is debatable...

On the contrary, I have been direct and honest.
You just make this claim in order to make it appear as though I have been otherwise - which relates to... See Below...

It needs very little explaining. You are harping on the ONE AND ONLY post, in which I clearly stated I was Speculating to demonstrate the Absurdity of all the speculating going on about Zimmerman.
The comment, as it clearly states, was that in those speculations, if the kid was innocent, he would not have acted violently.

No. I am discounting that you quote mined one thing he ahd said. He's not a God or perfect- all - repeat ALL other reports state that Zimmerman asked him what he was doing there. Martin Confirmed this and the GF did too.
You are discounting ALL of them for a quote on one thing one cop said.

Interesting.

And now for all the "See Below's"

Bells, that vast majority of your post contains nothing but your usual sarcasm and ignoring of what I've said, distortions of what I said, repeats of claims I have repeatedly and soundly refuted, character attacks and the like.

Quite simply, other members of this forum who do not employ the tactics you do will probably get answers out of me for your questions on your behalf--- I am putting you on ignore.

Attempting to discuss with you is a complete act of futility due to your incessant character attacks, implications and frankly, it's not worth it, as you ignore what's said and go right back to attacking some more.

Take care.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Easy, everybody.

The issue is clearly inflammatory and passionate. That doesn't mean we need to be inflamed or impassioned ourselves. There are still good points being made, but there is some hyperbole mixed in with the fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On Topic:

You took quotes out of the ONE AND ONLY POST which I stated was a demonstration of the absurdity of the SPECULATIONS going on.
SPECULATIONS are NOT someone who is telling lies as facts.

I was CLEAR as hell in those posts.

For saying you are not Bells, you are sure acting like her at this point.

Yes, Speculations. I said that at time time. I said it was to show the absurdity of how so many speculate just fine against Zimmerman. Why is it ok to do it then? I mean, really- why is that OK?

You are assuming I fabricated that.
Actually, I am repeating Zimmerman. So it was not me.
Lastly, I read (well not lastly, Ive said it in three or four posts now) ONE article I thought said an eyewitness saw it happen.
I have scoured Mozilla Firefox history and gone through every link I found there about this news story and could not find that claim.

So I dropped it, said I couldn't support that.

It's reasonable for me to assume I was wrong, mistaken or confusing something else I'd read a week ago.

Yes, I do make mistakes. Can I make then without fecal matter accusations shoved down my throat?
Or does it make you FEEL better to do that if someone doesn't agree with EVERYTHING you think?
No, the ONLY course of action you choose is to pound your fist on the table, heavily accusing the other person of being a liar.

I posted reviews, medical report analysis and eyewitness. All of this relates to after the event.
The ONLY thing you can latch onto is that Zimmerman pursued. This is less suggestive as to who the aggressor was than the medical reports are!
At this point, you are relying on speculation while I rely on Physical Evidence.

Yes, that is possible. If that is the case, then Zimmerman will appear to be more of the aggressor. As it is, there's no claim or evidence I have seen that that happened.
You are speculating again.

Being honest- as I have been all along- I believe Martin played a larger role in his fate.
Based on Medical Evidence. Your accusation is meant to imply racist motives.

As long as you get to dismiss medical evidence, sure.

And the "Circumstantial evidence of the medical report ceases to exist in your mind.

Let's go OFF TOPIC...

This is true and I explained why, Jdawg.
I said:

Now, you bitterly complain about how I did not fully read your post, after I explained I didn't see the point. All you do is yell, "LIAR!" left and right in complete ignorance. Let's move on...

Really? You ONLY attack what I write?
Let's investigate that, shall we?

It seems the only person you have demonstrated to be a LIAR is YOU, Jdawg.
Your lie, clear as can be was...:

After which you went on an unsupported, totally unwarranted attack of my honesty.

You do not know me at all, hell, I don't recall ever speaking to you before. I've only Recently been posting on the forum after a long hiatus.

Yet you think you know so much, don't you? You KNOW what happened between Martin and Zimmerman, yet accuse me of acting like I Know.

You went and can be SHOWN to have shown a clear LIE yet repeatedly call me a liar.

And I have zero doubt whatsoever you will continue that absurd behavior.
That was why I skimmed your post and it's clear that I was correct.

I'm going to continue with that and you're going on Ignore as well. Your posts are useless and not worth bothering with. So you can reply to this one or not- I don't care- I won't see that reply...
And I'm quite sure I won't miss anything worthwhile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It comes down to the dual standard that is used by PC and liberalism to define racism, sexism and all the other isms, in favor of its members. It uses retroactive guilt, so modern people are responsible for something they did not do, and it rewards those who did not directly suffer. The dual standard assures justice is not served to the other political party.

Even if you could prove neither you nor your ancestors had slaves or had anything to so with slaves or slavery and you could show you march for civil right, you are still under the dual standard if you just so happen to be light skinned. The assumptions of the dual standard lead to automatic bias and irrationality.

If there was an organization called the NAAWP or the National association for the advancement of white people it would be called racist. However, it was called the NAACP or the national association of the advancement of colored people it is not. Both can be duplicates in terms of goals, behavior, peacefulness, but the dual standard will treat one differently than the other. One will be boycotted and treated like a hate crime while the other is good. The Pavlov reaction has been programmed into the mob so forget about logic and truth.

This dual standard is being used in this case. By calling Zmmerman white, this assures the dual standard applies. If he was called Spanish you could not get the Pavlov Reaction in the same way. One guy will be the Saint no matter what he does and the other the devil no matter what it does or did, thereby satisfying the dual standard. It takes effort for justice to find its way to consciousness since you is not dealing with a rational mob.

 

You know damn well that's not what I did. I quoted your speculations as well as your lies.

Because the weight of the evidence is against Zimmerman. Perhaps not in legal terms, but when you have him pursuing Martin, Martin running from him, and then a fight ensuing, it's pretty easy to figure out who initiated.

So were you quoting Zimmerman, or were you citing an eyewitness? You can't even keep it straight for one paragraph!

Good to know.

For you to assume this, yes. But to the rest of us, it looks like a lie.

Hey, you're the one putting every other word in ALL CAPS. I just pointed out that you lied about the eyewitness report. Mind you, the context of your comment was in the midst of inflammatory remarks about the media's sensationalism regarding this story. Perhaps it was my mistake for assuming your comments were at least researched, as opposed to being unfounded nonsense that you couldn't be bothered to verify.

Yes, you did, but then you used them to draw the conclusion that Martin was at fault, a theory that is not at all supported by the evidence you cited.

No they're not. How many times do I have to tell you that the loser of a fight is not always the victim? I've said this at least three times now. Martin beating up Zimmerman says nothing of who started the fight, only of who got the better of it.

Meanwhile, Zimmerman pursuing Martin means that he has the intent of confronting Martin. Martin fleeing means that he has no intention of being confronted. At the very least it implies that Zimmerman was the aggresson, if not the instigator of the physical altercation. We can't say for sure who started the fight, but at least we know that Zimmerman initiated the exchange, whatever form that took. And that is relevant to the fight, unlike the medical reports which say nothing of who started it.

For the Nth time, the physical evidence only says Zimmerman got beat up.

Of course there's evidence he was the aggressor. Him pursuing Martin makes him the aggressor. As for who started the fight, we don't know. And for the record, the only person claiming Martin started it is Zimmerman. Unfortunately, the only other person who could claim otherwise is dead, so saying that there's no claim is profoundly absurd.

I'm not speculating. I'm simply demonstrating how it is impossible to reach the conclusion you have reached based on the available evidence.

And you have nothing to support that, except perhaps some racial bias or a desire for the media to be wrong about this. There's no physical evidence to support your theory. None whatsoever.

Your theory implies racist motives. The medical evidence says nothing about who started what. For all you know, Martin was protecting himself. That you dismiss this implies that you're not interested in a scenario with Martin as the victim. I wonder why?

I dismiss the medical evidence as having any bearing on who initiated the fight yes. I've been jumped before and come out better than the other guy. And I've also come out looking worse and still winning. His cuts and bruises mean nothing. The fact that Martin was winning the fight means nothing. It's completely irrelevant.

Again, for the, like, hundredth time, the medical evidence implies nothing. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you so hell-bent on making Martin look like the bad guy here? If it's because he's black, say so. If it's because he's a media darling and you're angry about it, say so. Just say what the real reason is, because we both know it has nothing to do with the evidence.

That's a lie, too. I never called you a liar. I pointed out lies you've told. If they aren't lies, and they're simply a product of your sloppy research, then you be more careful. The assertions made during your self-righteous rants are going to be taken at face value.

And at any rate, you said my post had flaws all through it, but at the same time claimed to have not read it. So either you're lying about the flaws or you're lying about not reading it. You can't know the content of my post and not have read it. You follow?

You lied. What do you want me to say? And, for the record, you've now called me a liar, which is something I never did to you. Anyway, all of my comments were about your posts.

There was nothing unwarranted about my comments. You earned them by continually lying to suit your bias. If you're mad about getting caught, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

First of all, I never claimed to know you, or to know what happened between Martin and Zimmerman. (Another lie by you! They're starting to add up) Secondly, everything I said is based on the wildly speculative and inaccurate comments you've made in this thread, so don't blame me for your sloppy work.

What lie?

Ah, just as I figured. Called out for your lies, so now you'll duck your head in the sand and hide from the Big Meanie who won't let you get away with making crap up and passing it off as the truth.

Bye bye, Neverfly.

 

Nope, Ignoring an unreasonable poster.

You asked what Lie? I clarified it and you cut it out of my post in which I explained it quite well- thanks.
You lied again when you claimed that you were not calling me a liar. Saying I told lies and fabrications- is calling me a liar. There is no way around it- it is what it is.
You're distorting your behavior heavily in the hopes of making it seem less bad than it is. I quoted you.

NOW you backpeddle and say maybe I did sloppy research.

Maybe I did. I don't think I did but it's possible.

I do not think I did sloppy research-I think I jumped the gun with what I remember reading without making sure I could support it.

And yes, that is pretty embarrassing. Especially considering my emotional reaction.

But I retracted it- and you called the retraction a lie.

Jddawg, I've decided to not debate the topic with you, not because I am full of crap and you're magically able to tell... But because you're unable to debate without resorting to as much Ad Hom attack as you can stuff into a post.
"Don't confuse me with facts, My Mind is Made up!"

You decided right away that I must be a liar- within ONE post when you saw an unsupported claim.
Well, there IS support- Zimmermans account. We can reject that for now.
But that an eyewitness saw it?
I was wrong. It happens.

I got called on it and checked up on it and couldn't find support.

I retracted the claim.

You keep banging your fist yelling "LIAR!"

You call the retraction a lie.
"Don't confuse me with facts, My Mind is Made up!"

Which is exactly what I said you were doing in the first place.

You said I may have done sloppy research, yet I posted links to the articles and quote after quote after quote.

Instead of seeing I was supporting what I was saying- you resort to what Bells did and are now trying to say I must be a Racist.

Seriously?

I mean, Really?

IF I don't jump on the bandwagon and support a black guy that BEAT UP some guy until the guy defended himself, I must hate blacks?

You two really are making pathetic attempts and since you cannot put forth reasonable arguments without major character assassination- You're simply not worth debating with.

So get over your ego. You didn't win with intellectual debate. You didn't show the facts and cause me to see I was in error.

You won with dishonesty, distortion and wild character assassination til I got fed up with it and decided it wasn't worth my time.
You won because you kept saying, "Don't confuse me with facts, My Mind is Made up!"

You got your win. Relax, enjoy it. I really do not care.

I got my frustrations out and off my chest. Maybe the trial will show I've got it ALL Wrong. If it does, I'll not be bothered. In fact- the opposite.

Because the KID DID DIE. And that's hard to swallow. Real hard.
I've already posted how I feel about THAT several times.

And it would, in the end, feel a LOT better if Zimmerman was the aggressor, if he WAS out to pick a fight.
Because at least then he could be really punished.
As it is now, I'm not convinced that he was. You haven't been very convincing thumping your chest over there and neither has Bells with her character assassinations.
But if the trial comes out with more stuff that convinces me, I'll probably feel a lot better over it. Right now, it's got me all worked up.

All you are is a coupla jerks that can't discuss without trying to tear a persons character to shreds.

 

Discussing something before all of the facts are known isn't a very good idea to me. That's why I don't like to talk about cases like this before I can hear everything that has been collected by both sides of the case. To jump to conclusions before knowing all of the facts only tells me that few people really want to understand what happened but just want to support either side for one reason or another. While speculation isn't wrong it only shows that many here cannot gather the evidence with an open mind but take sides.

Just yesterday I heard that the dispatcher told Mr. Zimmerman to "stay in his car and not to follow the suspect but to wait until police arrive". Since that was another piece of this puzzle it shows me that he initiated the confrontation by not following the orders that were given to him but instead elected to get out of his car and actually confront Trevor. Now most ordinary people would have stayed in the car but why do you think Mr. Zimmerman left his safe vehicle and went to confront Trevor. Perhaps he wanted to hold Trevor until police arrived? Now that wouldn't be very smart for anyone that approaches me at night when I'm walking around would give me the thought of being attacked or mugged as many would put it.


I imagine that if I were confronted by someone at night when I wasn't doing anything illegal then I would think that I need to defend myself since I don't know their motives and maybe Mr. Zimmerman actually put his hands on Trevor to try and stop him, who knows? That could be when Trevor hit Mr. Zimmerman to keep him from holding onto him, now this again is only speculation but I just really want to show another way to look at this situation after another piece of the puzzle comes into focus. I'm not saying that this actually happened but only that with each new piece of evidence we find we can keep on speculating about how it changes the dynamics of the case and how we should wait until everything is known.

 

This is true.
My bias is based on the racial charges that flew like crazy when this thing first broke out.
It's like, if the guy defended himself, why does he need to be arrested?
I have a very strong bias about innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty.

Don't tell Bells or JDawg, but while they have not convinced me, they HAVE called into question as to how strong my bias is.
I'm aware of my own bias - But given the medical evidence that the shooter had no marks on his knuckles and the one shot did- That Zimmerman was all beat up- It's pretty suggestive...

If Zimmerman put his hands on Treyvon... You know in all this time- I never thought of it.

I think I might hit someone for that.

Either way- the emotions of this one have got me all worked up. I have a son and I've spent a lot of energy forcing myself to NOT think about "What if it was him?"
The primitive and primal rage that thought leads me to- I haven't wanted that to create a New Bias.
Bells brought it up anyway and it was effective
I've been fighting that bias since I read it.

And then there's this one- I had not seen until five minutes ago...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/george-zimmerman-bail-hearing.html

 

Zimmerman will never be a cop as he wanted to be.

 

Neither are you, Bells.

 

I forgot that since you're a mod, I cannot put you on ignore. Figures.

You and I both have a very different motive and take. We each have a different bias.
At least have the honor to admit you DO have a Bias, Bells.

I admit I have several.

Now, in fairness to Fraggle Rocker and everyone else- I've had only my OWN thoughts on this and no one to bounce ideas off of. (So to Fraggle and Fraggle alone- I extend an apology for jumping on him like I did in an unrelated thread. It was an emotional reaction. It's to Fraggle because it's the only one of you I can be sincere about it too.)

This means that whatever I read, that was it.

Buddha commented about, "What if Zimmerman put his hands on him?"
That's not a punch.
There are no knuckles to be bruised- but it would have still been enough to make Martin justified in swinging a punch.

Now, we have no evidence that happened or did not happen.


As to "What if it was your son?"
This creates a clear bias for me to think that.

If it was my son, and he had assaulted a Neighborhood Watchman unnecessarily, beaten him into the ground and then reached for his gun, I'd have no choice but to admit he played his hand in his fate.
I would have to fight back a lot of primal rage and I would like to believe I would stand by that.

If it was my son and he was chased by a stranger that grabbed him and started yelling at him, then was shot--- I assure you, I Too Would Be Up On Charges.

What we have is a LOT of uncertainty that you claim is clear.

You do not know. I do not know.

And NONE of it makes any of what you say about me TRUE- The biggest issue that I have repeated again and again is that was JUST A KID.
JUST A KID that would never grow and come home and go to college and maybe be a dad someday too.
And nothing can change that.

And maybe, as I sit here thinking about all of this, my attitudes, your harsh mis-characterizations and all the articles I re-read in the last hour...

I wonder if maybe that's my bias. Potential went to waste.
He was 17 and he could have BEEN SOMEBODY. And now he's dead.

And I asked myself if it's easier if it's his own fault, than if it was just a STUPID MISTAKE.
Maybe that's my bias.

I'm out of this debate, Bells. I cannot debate with YOU. You cannot control yourself enough to speak to a human being.
But it's not because of you- It's because I think I probably need to examine a lot of my own ideas and see if the evidence (Medical, eyewitness report etc) looks compelling becuase I have another motive- or if it's solid. And that will take time.

 

Whatever, Bells.
You misunderstood a great deal of what I said just then, which I'm sure you'd deny doing because you cannot POSSIBLY ever be wrong.

I'm not going to debate the topic with you. In spite of your "Challenges" they are not really challenges. They are ad hom attacks and you are not so honest yourself.

After all your spewing about the "Clear facts' you turn and say your SOLE POST said it needs to be investigated.
No, you made MANY posts in which you expressed MANY opinions which you then termed Clear Facts- which completely contradicts most of what you just said in that last post. You behave in the exact manner you and JDawg accused me of!

You asked a WHAT IF and I answered about the WHAT IF which included Zimmermans Account- showing the difference between the two
and you either could not tell the difference or chose not to- You went right backto saying I MADE A CLAIM (NO I DID NOT) and that I am challenged to support it.

 

While that is true imagine a stranger grabbing you while you were walking home late at night, what would be your first reaction ? I'd think that throwing a punch by Treyvor would or could have been done to try and get the person away from touching him or grabbing him.

I can also imagine that Treyvor told Mr. Zimmerman to leave him alone and started walking away when Mr. Zimmmerman told him to stop, that's when Mr. Zimmerman could have put his hands on Treyvor to hold him until the police came. Then punches flew. Just another way to look at tis situation but probably not the one that happened again just a new view to think about.

 

Oh, I have been thinking about it.

 

There is a difference between calling someone a liar and saying that they lied. You might an honest person otherwise, I can't speak to that. But on this matter, you lied. Some items may have been sloppy research, but your overall argument is intellectually dishonest. The claim that Martin was "more wrong" despite having no evidence to suggest he did anything wrong, for example, is being intellectually dishonest.

I'm not packpeddling. You say now that you did sloppy research, I'm saying it's always a possibility. Also a possibility is that you weren't expecting to get called out on your lies, and now you're trying to cover your ass. Either way, you were very sure of yourself, and you have displayed dishonesty throughout this discussion. Rather than concede a point, you insist upon your correctness in spite of having no leg to stand on. That's dishonesty.

I didn't call the retraction a lie. Though I suppose it could be. You have been very inconsistent throughout, so it's possible.

[qutoe]Jddawg, I've decided to not debate the topic with you, not because I am full of crap and you're magically able to tell... But because you're unable to debate without resorting to as much Ad Hom attack as you can stuff into a post.[/quote]

No ad hominem. I'm commenting on your arguments, not your person. If you lie about something, and I call it a lie, that's not ad hominem. If you bend the facts to suit your theory--or ignore the facts altogether--and I point it out, that's not ad hominem. You're taking it personally when I dismantle your argument, and you shouldn't. You get extremely emotional when I prove you wrong. Perhaps you should find another hobby.

At least you've finally admitted it.

I didn't say you were a liar, I saw unsupported claims and what are obviously knowing alterations to the story made by a guy who claims to have been sick of the media's portrayal of this case. You actually do cite some instances in which the media fabricates the story, which you kind of interestingly assume are intentional misrepresentations to the public, rather than sloppy journalism. So it's okay when you can spot a BSer, but when I spot one, I'm supposed to just assume that you're misinformed rather than dishonest? Nice double-standard.

Stop lying, Neverfly. I never called you a liar.

Oh, so that's supposed to be me? Interesting. Which facts of yours have I ignored? Well, obviously I ignored the "fact" you made up about him attacking Zimmerman by jumping on his back, as well as the "fact" you made up about Martin returning to Zimmerman after initially running away and then attacking him in the door of his car. I also clarified that the cuts and bruises are irrelevant to the question of who started the fight, and pointed out that Zimmerman appears to be the aggressor by following Martin and even perhaps chasing him. I also said that none of this is proof, just a portion of the timeline we can be reasonably sure occurred, and that I have no clue who started the fight, or if Zimmerman really did need to fear for his life, or if Martin jumped out from behind a bush at him. How is that having my mind made up?

Oh, right: Another lie.

So if you didn't do sloppy research, then you knew that no eyewitness had claimed Martin jumped on Zimmerman's back?

Wait, you never supported what you said. You said that the pictures of Zimmerman show that Martin attacked him, but that's not true. It just shows they were in a fight.

And I'm also not trying to say you must be a racist. I'm saying there must be some other motivation here. It could just be that you're upset at the media, so you're hell-bent to make Zimmerman out to be the good guy, or at least make Martin out to be culpable. It doesn't have to be about race. But I'm pretty sure something else is going on here, because you know full well there is nothing to support your claim that Martin was at fault.

No, but you must hate blacks if you assume that the white guy was defending himself and the dead black guy was the attacker. It's incredibly racist to simply assume that's what happened.

Another lie. You know I've put forth reasonable arguments. Who do you think you're kidding?

Of course I did. You said an eyewitness saw Martin jump Zimmerman, I showed you that you were in error. You claimed that Martin returned to Zimmerman, I explained that you were in error. You claimed that the cuts and bruises on Zimmerman showed that Martin attacked him, I showed you the flaw in that thinking, and showed that you were in error. You said the facts support your claim, I showed you they did not. None of your arguments have stood here. They've all been defeated.

I haven't been dishonest, and I've distorted nothing. I've debunked your claims, nothing more. If your character is assassinated, it's by your own hand. I only pointed out the obvious lies, I didn't say that you were necessarily a dishonest person. I'm starting to think you are, after this tirade, of course, but that's not what I've said thusfar.

More lies.

Oh, I know I won. It's easy to defeat arguments that are based on personal biases when all the facts are in my favor. This was easy. You made it easy.

I'm beginning to doubt that you really want that to happen, but if you insist...

I've been very convincing. You just won't admit it because you're embarrassed.

I won't say that I should have convinced you that Zimmerman was guilty, but you should have at least come to the realization that there's no evidence to support the idea that Martin was in the wrong. Since you haven't, I can only assume you'll not be swayed by anything the courts say. Well, let me try that again: You'll not be swayed if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of manslaughter. You'll chalk it up to the predatory Liberal media, a Liberal judge, and a brainwashed jury. I'm sure if he gets off, of course, you'll call it a victory and final proof that he was in the right all along.

If you didn't make things up all the time, nobody would call you on it. Maybe this crap works with your buddies, but people here have no patience for it. Let that be a lesson.

 

I SAID :
"If it was my son"
And listed two hypothetical scenerios and my take on both. It was Clear.

One was based on Zimmermans Account in which Martin was a Total Aggressor. I also did not say it was concealed. I said Zimmerman had a concealed weapon permit.

The second was based on speculations made here that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

I find it very interesting, Bells, how you IGNORED the second hypothetical situation and asked for no proof of that.

Cut your Bullshit, Bells, no one is buying it.